Q.) How can you say that the photos of Gods are mere imaginations of the artists? ..

Q.213) How can you say that the photos of Gods are mere imaginations of the artists? They saw those forms in their meditation. How do you say that imagination is false? The world also is an imagination. The bliss must be found in the self and not from an external agency.

Ans) I like to answer a question, which is in quest of truth only. Such a question is called as Pariprasna in Gita. The person asks such questions with salutation and service. Sri Shirdi Sai Baba told Sri Nana Saheb that a question should not be asked to fight or to test the teacher or to expose one’s own knowledge. There will be no end to such discussion because the intention is not to find out the truth and it is only for the sake of argument. Sankara advised to drop such bad logic, which is not in accordance with Veda, Sastras and Gita (Dustarkah Suviramyatam….). The Brahma sutra " Tarka Apratisthanat……" also says that there is no end for the dry logic, leaving the basis of scriptures. I am giving the arguments in the traditional way - -

Opponent (Purvapaksha): The face of God in the calendar is seen by me in a vision through my meditation, which is very beautiful.

Your super imposed face hurts me.

Devotee of Swami (Siddhanti): The face of Swami in the form of God is seen by me also in the vision in which I opened my eyes and saw it. Your vision is an imagination seen by you by closing the eyes. The object seen by the eyes has more validity than the object imagined by mind. Therefore, my photo is more valid than your photo. The face of our Swami is more beautiful than your photo for us.

Swami (Madhyamika or Mediator): Let the devotee of Swami also agree that his vision also is an imagination like that of the opponent. Let both visions are one and the same and let the argument proceed now.

Siddhanti: Even then, assuming that both the visions are equal, I have an equal right to project my vision as the opponent projects his vision on the calendar. If the opponent is hurt by my published vision, I am also equally hurt by the published vision of the opponent. The opponent feels that his published vision is only the universal. If he agrees that his vision is for a group of people of similar thoughts, then my vision is also for a group of devotees of my Swami who have similar thoughts. Like him I have an equal right to publish my vision on a common calendar.

Swami: The opponent should answer one more question. Why there is no uniformity in the faces of the same God, published by the opponent group? If the vision received is true, there should be the same vision for all the artists. All the people see an individual in the world with the same face. He is not appearing with different faces to different people.

Opponent: The Lord can appear with any face to any devotee in his vision. The Lord is one and the same, though the visualized faces are different.

Siddhanti: Therefore, you have a wide range band spectrum of various faces of the Lord. The probability may vary from one to infinite. In this band spectrum each line indicates a probable face in this universe. One of such probabilities can be the face of my Swami also. Even in such case, you cannot object the face of our Swami, which can be one of your own probabilities.

Opponent: How do you say that my imagination is unreal, when the world itself is an imagination?

Swami: This argument is not correct. When you stand as a single reference, there is difference between the reality perceived by you and your imagination. This world is an imagination with reference to the Lord. You can change any item in to any other item or can produce any item or can make any item disappear in your imaginary world only but not in this realistic world. The Lord can do all the above in this realistic world, which is an imaginary world for the Lord. Therefore, the concept is not one and the same for you and the Lord.

Siddhanti: Therefore, based on this, I can say that the face of Swami is real and the face seen in the visions of both myself and the opponent may not be real, assuming that my vision also an imagination like that of the opponent. Moreover, to establish the concept that one God appeared in different forms is more clearly expressed by our photos because the face of Swami is clearly and really one only. In the pictures of artists, this point cannot be established, since the faces are not only unreal but also different. We do not mind the point of reality or non-reality of the face provided there is uniformity in the faces. Therefore, the faces of the opponent cannot establish this concept.

Swami: Based on the arguments of the opponent and Siddhanti, I conclude that the version of Siddhanti is declared to be correct.

Note: - Regarding the bliss from an external agency the answer for the above question No: 212 may please be referred.